Scottsdale approves downtown zoning reforms, $31M sewer project; rescinds 28-unit housing after federal funding withdrawn

e hello everyone um welcome to the February 20th 2024 city council regular meeting I call us to order city clerk Ben Lane please conduct the roll call thank you mayor mayor David Ortega pres vice mayor Salange Whitehead here council members Tammy KY here Tom Durham here Barry Graham here Betty janick here and Kathy Littlefield here thank you city manager Jim Thompson here City attorney Sher Scott here City treasur Sonia Andrews and acting City auditor Lake KF here and the clerk is present thank you mayor very good uh we have Scottdale police Sergeant Shan Ryan as well as detective Dustin Patrick and firefighter Travis radkey if anyone needs assistance uh let's begin with the Pledge of Allegiance I'll call on vice mayor white congratulations flag of the United States of America and the stands na indivisible andice for all so at at this time um I do want to draw our attention uh to the wars in uh forign countries as well as uh our military and Personnel who are In Harm's Way last time we noted the loss of five American uh service people so we asked uh that we please join with me in a moment of Silent reflection thank you well the Scottdale Arabian um show uh horse show is underway at Westworld and it's an amazing opportunity to see the best um bred Arabians in the world there are over 2300 Arabian horses to enjoy here in Scottsdale and on Saturday spring training will begin of course the um um San Francisco Giants are are the home team for a month here in Scottsdale so please be on the lookout for that this point we'll have a presentation from Arizona Public Service uh with their Peak Solutions rebate and the team representing representing Brian basme Water Resources executive director and um Timothy howt the account manager for APS this is getting to be an annual recogn recognition and we appreciate it thank you mayor Brian bees Meer executive director for Scott Stillwater and it it is my pleasure to be here to present you both with a large and large check both in size and dollar value uh from APS through their Peak Solutions program which is a demand response program that APS put into play um and during very high usage times of the year they call for voluntary shuts shutdowns or voluntary reductions in power and we are rewarded by the amount we are able to shed of our Peak demand um I will let Matt p uh and Timothy here talk to you about the part on aps's side and Peak Solutions um but we're very glad to get this check for the city hello everyone Timothy how with EPS first off we'd like to say thank you mayor Ortega and your for fellow uh council members for partnering with us on such a great program I'm going to have Matt come up and give you some of the fun stuff the numbers that go with it thank you Timothy and thank you mayor Ortega and esteemed City Council Members thank you uh my name is Matt p uh I work for SE power and uh we manage the aps Peak Solutions program for APS this is a no a of pocket cost program where we pay APS business customers to periodically reduce electrical usage in the summertime we always ask how a customer wants to participate and follow their lead uh ask them periodically uh during the summer time to reduce electrical load uh there were three times uh this summer uh that uh scuss water was asked to cail electrical usage and we're happy to deliver a check in the amount of $168,000 uh I think that comes to 1.6 million 1.6 over the time we've been enrolled yep uh Scott St water seminal customer uh started back in 2010 uh one of the first ones to join and here I'm happy to say we're going in the 14th year with a a happy partnership so um thank you I appreciate it scribble scribble the name in [Applause] spe well our our rate payers appreciate that and as we continue um with our budgeting and uh uh rate um discussion rate uh discussion why this certainly is a big factor in um ways heavily and smart decisions um it is possible during tonight's meeting that the council may make a motion to recess into executive session to obtain legal advice on any applicable item which is on the agenda if authorized by the council the executive session will be held immediately and will not be open to the public the public meeting would resume following the executive session um next uh per our Council rules of procedure citizens attending City City Council meetings shall observe the same Rules of Order and decorum applicable to members of the council and City staff unauthorized remarks or demonstrations from the audience um would just delay our meeting and are not permitted violations of these rules would result in uh could result in removal from the meeting by security staff our next portion of our uh meeting is a call to the public Public public comment is reserved for Scottdale citizens uh property owners and Scottdale um businesses to comment on non- agendized items that are within the council's jurisdiction advocacy for or against a um a candidate or ballot measure during the council meeting is not allowed pursuant to state law and is therefore not deemed to be within the council's jurisdiction no official Council action can be taken on public comment and speakers are limited to three minutes to address the council if you wish to speak some of you have already um contacted the clerk uh to my right and um you will be um able to also check with the clerk if you have a comment on agendized items this point we have uh requests from four individuals to come forward so I am opening public comment um and they are hyam chaplain and Bob ler and Then followed by David Smith so please come forward State your uh place of residence thank you and then U um yes uh to that Podium to my left thank you welcome hi my name is ham Champlain and I'd first like to thank you for the support uh for the opportunity to speak about what many to be a great Injustice I live at I own a home in Scottdale house complex located at 4800 North 68 Street Scottdale house is a condominium community of 263 homes located on 40 acres that was built in the 1960s and I am on the board of our homeowners association in December of 2022 we reported a crime to your Police Department the alleged crime was a theft of over $1.6 million from our HOA by the general manager and the bookkeeper we completed the detailed embezzlement packet at the request of the detective and six subpoenas were were issued to Banks and credit card companies in April of last year since then nothing has been done done on the case from our perspective we are told that one of the banks desert credit financially or desert Financial Credit Union has not responded to The subpoena and that all we can do is wait even though it's been 10 months since they received the subpoena we filed an employee dishonesty claim at roughly the same time we filed the police report we proved that claim and have collected over $700,000 starting in February of last year the insurance company did not dispute any of our claim our policy only went back two years which prevented us from collecting more my point is that if we can prove our case in a matter of months to an insurance company why is Justice taking so long with the Scottdale police let me be clear I have nothing but admiration for detective Steven Negron but it is apparent that he has a work overload and it is hurting our investigation the purpose of my talk tonight is to respectfully ask the city council to add more support to our case it is not right that after 14 long months the 500 plus victims of Scottdale house most of whom are elderly are still waiting for Justice with no end in sight thank you thank you next we have Elizabeth Kung Cony with Justice honorable mayor Ortega city council members and fellow citizens thank you for the opportunity to make everyone aware of the recent debacle Pleasant Run experience with the city of Scottsdale's planning department as you can see I'm a volunteer for the city I'm a Scottdale Ambassador and have been a volunteer since 2006 but tonight I'm here as a volunteer for the Pleasant Run Home Owners Association we are 195 town home Community with a limited finite budget in 2003 and like the previous gentleman we've been around for quite a while in 2003 one of our homeowners submitted to the planning department employee Jose Jesus [Music] marillo a permit request that permit request was denied after repeated emails phone calls and requests for additional information which we received none of and you have a packet there showing you uh more detail it wasn't until we reached out to the mayor that we finally got a meeting with the planning department the meeting lasted 25 minutes and the permit was approved with no additional changes to our previous process but because we had to get our attorney involved to for review and um zoning restriction review it cost the community $1,679 I'm here today as a volunteer for the Pleasant Run homeowners association to ask the city for some restitution be it a credit towards our attorney's fees or credit towards our water bill or even possibly some of that money you just got from APS we are a a community that has been in existence since the early 70s of our 195 homes we have 180 patios this is the first time we've run into a problem the city of Scottsdale's planning department go goal is to make Scottdale development process helpful speedy and smooth Pleasant Run saw none of that it was they weren't helpful they weren't speedy and it wasn't until 5 months later that we got that meeting with the planning department and it's only I believe because we reached out to the mayor and asked him to assist in facilitating that meeting any consideration you can give the Pleasant Run homeowners Community regarding this debacle is greatly appreciated thank thank you thank you next we have Bob leri David Smith and Mason Gates Bob leri and then is David Smith here okay excuse me sir um H are you are you Bob no I'm I'm Mason Gates uh well we have U David Smith coming up before you sorry I oh yeah yes sir so I I I meant to call them out in order so that's how they they would U appear uh I would also send a a second call for Bob ler if he's here but he may be U coming up later so go ahead uh David Smith great to see you oh thank you mayor and members of the Council my name is David Smith I'm here tonight to urge you to honor a promise that was made to Citizens when they supported a sales tax initiative almost 30 years ago in the special election that we held on May 23 of 1995 voters were asked and you remember this to authorize a temporary 2% increase in our local sales tax rate to acquire preserve land and in 1995 of course nobody knew how long it might take to acquire preserved land much less how much it might cost and so the voters were promised that the tax would remain in effect for 30 years or less and that phraseology is in the ballot language 30 years or less it's in the descriptive title and it's in the ballot that asks them tells them what a yes vote would imply and then of course nine years later in 2004 voters were again asked to uh approve a temporary sales tax for The Preserve and this time it was 0.15% both to buy land and to make improvements surely today we can conclude that the original Mission to acquire preserved land has been accomplished we enjoy a Preserve of 30,500 Acres most of which was put into The Preserve 10 years ago and surely today we can also conclude that the original Mission to have the debt that's issued for this preserved land defeased or taken care of that's been adequately provided for and why do I say that this year's operating budget predicts that The Preserve fund will have a balance of $130 million of cash and if we calculate that Cash Plus just two years of the 0.15 small preserve tax that would completely repay all the debt that exists and in fact if we continue to calculate what that 0.15 preserve tax might accumulate to in the remaining life it has the balance will grow to $250 Million by the time that tax expires and absolutely no debt our citizens were promised that the0 2 tax was temporary and more than that they were promised that it was going to be for 30 years or less we should celebrate the fact that the mission was met in less than 30 years and I urge this Council to do what you have the sole authority to do and that is stop the point point to preserve tax do it now and restore in the process the respect of our citizens for having honored a promise made to them many many years ago thank you very much Mr Mayor thank you sir um at this point we have I'll just make another call for Bob ler so I don't see him then let's go to Mason Gates you please State your place of residence and um three minutes good to meet you uh hi there my name is Mason Gates um I live off of 68 and Thomas all right good evening council members and fellow residents of Scottdale I come to you today to V voice my firm opposition to Future nonsensical road diet propositions in the city of Scot as a resident of South Scottsdale located close to the intersection of Thomas and 68 during my commutes both to and from work each day I have the pleasure of witnessing unnecessary congestion on the newly renovated 68 Street which cost Scottdale taxpayers an estimated $1.9 million but it's not just me after chatting with the owner of beg Bakery Rich berera he stated that he often sees buses semi trucks and other vehicles parked in the bike land that is intended for cyclists this can pose a grave danger for cyclists who need to avoid parked Vehicles by swerving in a traffic Lanes where drivers may not expect to see them when I asked Mr berera his initial thoughts when the city council had approached him about this road diet idea he stated that he wasn't initially approached for preliminary conversations and that quote had he not been vehical about it then he would have been overlooked end quote he also added the government is going to do what the government is going to do now I don't know about the rest of you but statements like that concern me immensely as a small business owner myself if I can't trust that my elected officials will be consultative in their representation then why would I want to keep my business in the city moreover it's crucial that we acknowledge the fact that according to a 2022 survey from statista Global consumer survey 76% of American commuters use a personal vehicle to travel from home to work while only 10% ride their bike and 11% rely on public transport this isn't merely an economic concern but it's also a long-term logistical nightmare as well if the same council members voting in favor of high density developments are also prioritizing the reduction of traffic Lanes I have to ask what are we doing here unfortunately the 68 Street project is just one of many symptoms of a 15 plus year activist campaign that is sought to impose Road diets on Scottsdale's formerly highly efficient ient Road Network the council will quickly realize that they have made a significant mistake if they continue genuflecting to the loud demands of the bicycle Lobby in exchange for the transportation needs of Scottdale car drivers it's high time that the council starts focusing on Common Sense policy rather than pushing random unwanted agendas onto the residents of this great city thank you thank you and we do have Mr Bob ler here hi sir may I yes go ahead sir my name is Bob leri and I have lived in McCormack Ranch for 25 years as I meet and speak with residents in McCormack Ranch and Scottdale Ranch I have heard them voice their concerns about the city council's street reclassification also known as Road diets eliminating car Lanes in favor of bicycle Lanes in their neighborhoods so to address the neighbors demand that the city council stop making traffic worse I am presenting a Citizens petition tonight signed by more than 200 Neighbors when Scott sale residents are ped they ask that their number one concern is traffic congestion but the city continues to ignore them and fails to find solutions to the problem City Hall keeps making bad decisions that blight our town with plain Jane multistory apartments that will further congest traffic on our streets and to add insult to injury the city council has ignored Road diets to remove car lanes and to add bicycle Lanes I am afraid our quality of life is going to continue to deteriorate if the city doesn't change their policy on road diets and find solutions to fix our traffic problems we are requesting that the city council consider our petition thank you and we will uh address that later in our agenda good to meet you sir this point u i will close public comment and um next we have an agenda items to uh which is approval of the minutes and I request a motion to approve the special meeting minutes of January 23rd 2024 executive session minutes of January 23rd 2024 regular meeting and work study session minutes of January 23rd 2024 do I have a motion so move second I have motion a second and uh we will also be calling on councilwoman Littlefield please record your vote yes thank you we are unanimous we will next move on to consent agenda items 1 through 8 uh please note that item number four uh was moved to the regular agenda and will appear as item 10A at this point we have the opportunity to open for comment uh to the public any um any items regarding the consent agenda uh there are no requests to speak from the public therefore I will close uh public comment on consent agenda items uh next we have councilwoman Janik and then vice mayor Whitehead thank you mayor um um I have a question on item number eight monthly financial report page 43 and it is the um statement of operations for December six-month year to date city of Scottdale on Westworld um my first question is it okay if I proceed Sonia okay my first question is um operating transfer in uh which is operating Revenue at the bottom um and it's $100,000 and I just kind of wanted you to explain to me what their transfer was and what it represented yes uh mayor council member Janik council members the $100,000 transfer was budgeted as a transfer from the tourism Development Fund the 5% for Destination marketing that the city is has retained to contribute to West world's marketing contract and then it was subsequently removed that's right what we decided to do is instead of transferring the tourism funds to Westworld which just to be to charge the tourism fund the uh 100,000 directly so we can that it's it shows the expenditure in the tourism fund instead of showing the expenditure in the Westworld fund okay and then um under contractual Services contractual workers um we I seen 8% and it looks like it's a refund to expenses just a reduction am I interpreting that correctly the 8% 8,329 um that's a VAR council member janick that is the favorable budget variance that means we have to date spent less than what we had anticipated okay um you think that will even out over time or do you think we're making progress on um some of the savings for Westworld um council member Janik I believe that we will be at our budget for Westworld okay and then um again I think it's maintenance and equipment rental and Fleet it looks like we have we're 23,000 um to our advantage um um is that just a timing difference again uh likely it's a timing difference yes okay and then Commodities and capital outlays Agriculture and horiculture and other supplies um 32% again is that timing yes um to the extent that we're able to save funds that would be great but um westw is budgeted to uh if you look at the previous page West world has budget to come in at an operating deficit of 550 um 3,000 for the year okay um so I wanted to make a comment on that um West World currently has um several debt issuances that were issued for land purchases for Westworld and because some of the land purchases were issued as tax exempt debt IRS does not allow it the IRS requirements for tax exempt debt is that we cannot make a profit until the debt is paid off so we we cannot make a profit on Westworld until the debt is paid off and the debt is scheduled to be paid off between 2031 and 2033 so right now if you look at the westw world financials the large large negative operating is really The Debt Service there's about three um about 3 something million in debt service that's causing the West World revenues to not meet the total Westworld expenditures now also keep in mind that Westworld contributes over 3 million in sales tax revenues to the city that is not put into this fund to offset those expenses because we use those revenues in the general fund okay that's very good information I asked because I've had a couple of our our uh citizens question how the budgeting was going with Westworld but it seemed like um it's on an upward swing so that's good thank you thank you thank you and vice mayor Whitehead well I want to thank councilman janic for bringing that up that is something that it's so important for us to uh possibly put in a summary because we do get asked and it's true the debt once paid off will make the uh venue much more positive in in uh in Revenue flow um so I just want to comment on um item four I think it's item nope item three the quail Crest states to resoning I just want to thank the gentlemen that are here and you know we get a lot of requests from residents to say no more development well as I often say there's private property rights in this state in this state and that's a good thing but um I'm just really always impressed when we can negotiate with our developers to make sure that there's Wildlife quarters make sure there's trails and make sure that the development we do have continues to make our community liveable for people and for the Wildlife so thank you I see no other requests to to speak or comment from Council do I have a motion on agenda items so moved second second so I have here a motion to approve items um 1 through eight of course item number four is is now on regular agenda uh please record your vote yes thank you we have unanimous on consent agenda items next we will move to the regular agenda items and we have items uh 9 10 and 10A in uh this case also for item nine it will be the next one it has to do with resending previously adopted resolutions related to funding to con construct The Residence at pyute our presenter is Judy Doyle community service assistant executive director good evening mayor and councel thank you next slide please on September 19th you authorized resolutions related to the pyute community center first a resolution uh to add funding to the bond 2019 project to replace aging structures that comprise office space at the pyute center and a resolution to add up to 28 affordable housing units next slide please specifically resolution number 1298 of fiscal year 2324 transfer of 5.3 million from the general plan initiative's designation to the bond 2019 project 25 replace aging buildings that comprise the pyute community center and resolution number 12913 which was an agreement with Maricopa County to receive 6.6 million of federal funds for the construction of affordable housing and Bridge housing which we were calling the residents at pyute this then required a contingency transfer to ensure that we have budget appropriation to spend the 6.6 million of federal funding the resolution also included a fiscal year 2324 $7.9 million general fund transfer from the general plan initiatives designation to the residents at pyute Capital project unfortunately Maricopa County did not schedule the approval of that contract with the city for the 6.6 million in Federal funding and advised us that the funds would not be made available to the city and instead would be reallocated to projects moving forward in the West Valley without the 6.6 million funding from the county the project is not viable and will not be moving forward at this time therefore we are requesting to resend uh the two resolutions I will note that while we are requesting to send resolution number 1298 which was the 5.3 million general fund transfer to the pyute bond project to cover the shortfall we do still plan to move forward with the bond project we are resending the resolution because we are moving the bond project back to its original timeline which included design to begin in fiscal year 2728 and the construction to begin in fiscal year 28 29 we had moved up the timing of the bond funding the bond project because we had this opportunity with the county by pushing the funding back to uh the original timeline we don't want to tie up that 5.3 million of general fund dollars for the three to five years before we're ready to begin the piute project we would bring forward to council a request to uh cover that short fall next slide please you might also recall on September 19th you had approved a second resolution uh related to the residents at Pou that resolution was for an agreement with Maricopa County for 1.8 million in funds from the Maricopa County Consortium of that 1.2 million was going to be used for construction of the Residence at pyute that remaining 600,000 was going to be used for a tenant based rental assistance program and a Supportive Services contract for those Bridge housing units meropa County did approve that $1.8 million contract however because the residents at pyute project will not be moving forward at this time staff is currently considering alternative allowable uses for that funding we plan to work with the county on a change to the scope of work once finalized we will bring forward to council how we plan to use those funds including resending this resolution 12847 These funds do not need to be spent until September 30th of 2030 so we do have some time on that funding next slide please and that concludes the presentation for this item you will find here on the slide the action that we are requesting of you this even evening resending those resolutions and reversing those transfers and with that I am happy to answer any questions well thank you very much I um do have one question from councilwoman Janik but I also have uh two requests to speak from the public uh do you want to go now uh councilman okay yes I would prefer to go with the public comment at this point we have uh Lee cofell and and Neil share and Judy can respond to perhaps questions as well and then come to us here thank you hi my name is Lee CTI uh I live at uh 78th and Miller on uh sorry Thomas and uh Thomas and Miller I just uh when I was reviewing the uh agenda I saw that there was a request to uh resin the previous ones and I was really excited about this project to begin with I think I've come up here many times to talk about uh affordable housing and what the city can do about it I know a few months ago talked about another project that the city's been running to uh make housing more affordable for the citizens of the city and so I just wanted to come up here and say if uh it sounds like this project is not being completely scrapped but if there's anything else to City can do uh with the funds that are being rescinded I would urge uh strongly that we look at uh some other way to help our citizens who need uh housing assistance so that's all I have to say thank you thank you sir uh next we have Neil Sher good evening mayor and council members I'm Neil Shear longtime Scottsdale resident I'm also honored to chair the Human Services Commission and the Scottdale housing agency governing board although I'm not speaking on behalf of those boards tonight I think it's a fair bet that they agree with my comments and and perspectives when I spoke to the city council on September 19th in support of the piu projects I noted that far more times than not the city gets it right when you're pursuing bold initiatives to improve our Collective quality of life and the city council got it right when you took bold action on September 19th to move forward with the residents of pyute project to create 28 high-quality affordable housing units that would be made available to Scottdale seniors Scottdale disabled residents and other Scottsdale residents who have fallen on hard times it is very disappointing that the city council has put in this position this evening to resend funding resolutions but there's no need to dwell on why we're here what's important is that the residents at pyute project was the right project in the right location in full alignment with the voter approved General plan it in September and it is still today so please do not let this project die uh you you have an amazing staff take this opportunity to re-evaluate to be resourceful to be creative as Scottdale is to downsize if needed and to consider other Partnerships and funding approaches for keeping this project alive I will help any way that I can and I thank you again for your service to our community thank you next I will uh go to councilwoman Janik and then council member Graham thank you mayor um Lee Neil I totally agree with everything you said um what we were doing there was a big need it's unfortunate that hopefully it's just a delay and that we can continue in the future to accomplish the goals which is to help our homeless uh perhaps to help with Bridge housing which is essential in keeping our families and people off the street and do the best we can to be good neighbors now my question to you Judy is can we reapply for some of these funds in the future what is the can we do it next year do we have to wait a couple years can you give me a little bit of an idea what the path forward would be mayor and members of council yeah uh my team is always looking for grant opportunities uh with the county with the the state federal funds so yes we will continue to pursue other funding sources to support yeah an identified need in our community thank you thank you council member Graham thank you mayor hi Judy good presentation um one of the public commenters mentioned that the loss of this projects a loss for um Scottdale residents Scottdale seniors um part of the reason that I was opposed the project was because it did it wasn't dedicated to Scottdale residents it wasn't dedicated to Scottdale seniors it was open to anybody even out of state and um I didn't like the strings attached from the federal government uh Grant and so is that correct there were open eligibility is my memory correct mayor and members of council uh well my recollection of September 19th is we were going to offer this program to seniors and uh disabled uh what did I'm just I'm saying what did the did the contract limit to that or was that just sort of like a policy uh guideline that staff was going to pursue mayor and members of council I don't recall if the language was specifically in there I do know that federal funds uh can only be used uh for US citizens uh they could not be applied to say title 42 uh immigrants okay um you mentioned that the county just withdrew the 6.6 million did they expand on that or give you a reason they explain why mayor and members of the council unfortunately no they did not um the county did have the contract on their agenda for their September 27th meeting uh it was rather last minute the agenda item was pulled from their uh agenda and we had waited to see if it would be put on future agendas and it was not we did receive word on January 26th from the county that the funds would not be uh given to the city and instead would be reallocated to other projects moving forward in the West Valley and the county also asked us that we would come back to our Council and resend the resolution so they to they told us a whole lot of what but not a whole lot of why mayor and members of council yes okay um after we voted on the project the council there we a city put out a press release and in the press release it was very specific about the bond 2019 Bond project 25 replacing pyute buildings with separate project and separate funding from the residents at P the 28 unit uh project so that led to me to believe that they were truly separate financially so in your presentation you said that um he said that we moved the bond project forward because we had this opportunity with the county and so considering the city uh said the projects were separate what was the opportunity mayor and members of the council the opportunity was the original um uh concept of the residents at pyute was going to have the bond project on the first floor the 28 affordable housing units on the second floor and again this was the original concept we had thought this would U offer an economy of scale allowing for savings with the project only having one roof for example so we saw it as an opportunity to save costs but it was two distinct separate projects so um at the when we voted on it in the council meeting was that Vision still the second floor was that still in place the all of Mayor and members of council all of them material that had been submitted yes referred to a uh second floor concept however it was just a concept it was not something that you know we would be coming back and having a very public process okay on ultimately what we would have done okay and then because the press release came out I think one or two days after that and so at that point they said it's separate projects separate funding and so I guess maybe in that window of time there was a decision mayor and members of council with that initial concept it was still two separate projects the first floor was the bond project the second floor was the affordable housing two separate projects okay um partners partners for pyute I'm just did they have any feedback about the recision of the money mayor and members of council uh Rachel smana our community services manager did share that we were going to be requesting to resend the resolution for the residents at pyute with the executive board uh Rachel also plans to share tonight's results in her update with the entire board later this week but there were two comments that were made uh from the executive board the first one uh one board member asked if there were other opportunities to which Rachel replied that not with this particular funding source unfortunately the funding was reallocated and then a second executive board member did just Express their disappointment did you get any feedback from the I think there's a couple schools on site that rent uh facilities did they have any feedback for your staff mayor and members of council um I do not know but I would be happy to get back to you with that okay I'd be interested to know because it seems like they have a longer Runway between now and whenever construction was hypothetically scheduled sure okay Judy thank you very much it's my pleasure well thank you um and I'll make a few comments ments here you know there isn't a day when someone mentions to me that housing affordability is a crisis especially for seniors veterans whether it's in Scottdale or any any other place in any other city in the valley in this case the understanding was acceptance of uh over6 and A5 million dollar which would be distributed through the county and um we at one point looked at the business plan which would have uh paid back into this Reserve fund and which would have had results conceptually of a housing um uh approximately 28 uh seniors and um veterans and at uh some point uh you we have to recognize that Scottdale is a major donor a major donor to the federal level state level and uh certainly the county level we are a high performance City we are a donor City that means we get back less than what we pay in in um in value and what our citizens uh would expect any discussion about a hypothetical and con concept I think I made my myself clear that night that uh the uh concept could be a side by side where an office building was here and there's a firewall between them and the second or or housing uh situation I made that very clear as an architect that certainly stacking bathrooms over offices wasn't a great idea and that was again a concept when you really are required a firewall between them rather than a horizontal firewall between office spaces so um what's happened is I became aware that the county was dragging their feet and um this was um we looked into it at a staff level and uh we even counter offered if uh there was some hold back uh as to how this could move forward so we could meet the need of our seniors and Veteran population we did not get any response we did not get any uh response from supervisor Thomas Galvin in fact he blocked the funds and uh supervisor Galvin actually ghosted us he did not respond he did not represent the people of Scottsdale and therefore it was not agendized well when other Council and supervisors in the rest of the valley who have pending problems with senior housing and and Veteran housing and all that saw the opportunity for um a agendized item to sweep the money into their jurisdictions that brought a lot of smiles and certainly uh the result was that uh supervisor Galvin basically defunded this effort he defunded the effort to provide housing that uh we were certainly due that we could have represented that again it wasn't an obstacle of whether one was stacked on top of another it was as those details would have been worked out it was a question of whether or not they'd be trenching one sewer line and one water line at a time that would accommodate both projects it would have been done and could have been done in a sensible manner so that the operations would work now so the bad new the good news I'll start with that the good news is this council is confronting the crisis and we put money in our budget for two years in a row it may be a public private sector solution uh we've had a series of people who have had successful uh affable Housing Solutions uh come through my door and make proposals on uh properties and so forth so there are other options that's that's the good news uh the bad news is of course the action tonight the action tonight is to uh resend the uh resolutions uh which were uh uh we we got shorted on we got shorted on and uh it's it's unfortunate when County officials or state officials uh become um the problem or part of the problem not part of the solution um these funds um reduced the um ability to for us to act quickly and uh we will continue in our um uh efforts uh to make sure we have funds within our budget it means I don't know Judy that we need you up there but thank you for sitting there and um but the results today uh show that uh in fact I think reaffirm that this Council uh has budgeted and wants to do something that uh will necessitate uh action on our part uh we can't turn our backs on seniors we cannot ignore placing it on the agenda when um the veterans in many cases seniors who downsized who grew up raised their families here uh and then downsized into apartments are getting shoved out uh basically with without much notice uh essentially uh great performing um families uh have uh been coming to us and that's all of record so um with that I'm certainly uh ready willing and able to hear a motion on the agenda item as stated oh May uh we I have a one from councilwoman whad and then you're you're back sorry uh counc yeah you know and I agree with councilman Graham I wanted to have scottdel residents but I I think that not having a unanimous vote enabled the county to take our tax dollars make no doubt about it these were our tax dollars and send them to the West Valley so now we're pretty we're guaranteed that Scottdale residents will not be helped and we've got to stop playing politics instead of helping people um the we know that the number one group that is falling into homelessness are our seniors and I see this all the time in my volunteer work at Granite Reef Senior Center so I'm deeply disappointed that we lost this opportunity I'm deeply disappointed with the County Board of Supervisors for giving Scottdale tax dollars to other cities and leaving our our seniors high and dry um especially when we have a council that was committed to helping our senior citizens um I do uh councilman Graham you mentioned strings attached other than the federal government not allowing the city to house noncitizen were there any other strings attached Judy no it's fine Mary please come on up thank you mayor council members there were strings attached it had to be open housing to all so we had to accept applications that's what I thought okay so I do you know I have been in the real estate business business for 10 years and so there's a federal law the fair housing act and so I think that is what prohibited us from saying we only want these people other than requiring that they be American citizens in this housing so when this city council has good ideas we also have to fall within those ideas have to meet state federal and city laws and so I think that was limitation with the allowing only Scottdale residents so I just wanted to point that out that you know this idea of strings attached is used often and usually it means that the federal government wants us to have americanmade products or it's usually for our own good so I just wanted to point out that that I don't think that was the challenge and we all wanted to help Scottdale residents first so with that I'm going to go ahead and make a motion um on item number nine to resend previously adopted resolutions related to funding to construct the residents at pyute um request adopt resolution number 13052 to authorize the resending of previously adopted resolution number 12913 um number two a fiscal year 2324 return of 6,570 th000 of budget appropriation from the construct The Residence at pyute Capital project to the capital Grant contingent budget three a fiscal year 2324 return of 7,991 73 from the construct the residence of pyute capital project to the general plan initiatives designation to the general fund operating fund balance number four the resending of previously adopted resolution number 12928 number five a fiscal year 2324 return of 5,361 16,18 from the bond 2019 project 25 replace aging building that comprise pyute Community Center to the general plan initiatives designation in the general fund operating fund balance second second thank you we have a motion in a second um would you like to speak to your second uh council member d d oh I didn't I didn't second it I sorry I just thought I'd ask for the to speak to the second the second so then and I have you council member Graham next sure I I um 100% agree with what council member Whitehead said uh we've had this conversation before uh if we don't want the strings that's great but if you don't want the strings you don't get the cash and uh as a result of rejecting that uh you know it's possible that we may have uh forfeited housing for people who need it including seniors and Veterans so I think um there's a lesson that can be taken from this thank you thank you council member Graham thank you mayor so I'll just respond um the thing about strings attached is that you you can't just dismiss that and say well you know maybe theoretically it can do some good hopefully it can do some good strings of attached or strings attached they decide for us so if we don't want the strings we shouldn't take the money so you know the reason why I talk about when I asked about M Miss Doyle about eligibility and strings attached is that there's a lot of rhetoric up here about we're not being able to serve seniors and Veterans and that that's just that that's not that's not the reality of the program the program is open to anybody is absolutely open to anybody and so you know and you know am I is this just a theoretical because what they're saying is theoretical it's not theoretical we have a precedence in our city right now we have an 8un uh uh we have an 8un housing project on bellw just south of Sky song we just talked about it a couple uh meetings ago a meeting or two ago and the majority of people that have been housed in that we had strings attached when we took that that was built by County fundings I think a county money I think through a conduit circumstance strings ATT were attached to that and the majority 34s of of uh of uh tenants that have Ser been served there were not from Scottsdale not from Scottsdale so we can look at the actual there and we can project that out I'm looking at the actual and I'm also saying when we have the strings attached we should think twice we should look at them closely we should ask questions and think critically it's not some exercise about well you know hopefully this will help so that is what that is the point point I was trying to make those was kind of the over arching message I was trying to make when I talked about that thank you mayor okay thank you and we are talking present tense so present tense is that we have a waiting list of over 400 city of Scottdale residents and others that have these needs and it's not uh and if we build 20 units or five units unless we build over 500 units we're still going to have we have a documented waiting list so and and I would remind everyone that once somebody moves to Scottdale they are our constituents so demonizing somebody that fortunately there's many people that can afford to build and buy multi-million dollar home homes here there are other people that rent here and all of those are a full spectrum of people real people with real needs of housing uh with that I I hear the motion in the second and uh council member Durham and then we'll take a vote and oh excuse me let me call on uh councilwoman Littlefield if you had a comment on this um because she is remote and I I do mean to give her a opportunity uh thank you mayor uh I really don't have a a a comment per se I'm sorry that it's uh ending this way but uh hopefully we can work on it and get come back and make something happen that's uh better great thank you council member Durham Ju Just to repeat the only string here was that the residents had to be American citizens and we may have lost $6 million uh over the fear that someday somewhere somebody won't we don't like would have moved into this and I also agree with what the mayor said uh the residents at bellw which uh council member Graham referred to some of them have lived there four or five years and if if you've lived here four or five years you're you're a Scotsdale resident so that the notion that somebody can live here four or five years and not be a Scottdale resident because they lived somewhere else is just absurd and so once again I I repeat I hope we learn a lesson from this tonight um about strings and we're we're free to reject the strings but that means we reject the money too and that's money that um all of you uh will have to make up for in one way or another so thank you thank you we'll call uh let's uh please record your vote yes okay that's unanimous thank you we'll move on to the next item which is item number 10 item 10 is a presentation of the um consideration of case five general plan 2021 number two and number one text Amendment 2021 phase two a review of mtown Scottdale character area plan and zoning ordinance update we have Aron yone uh presenting thank you sir thank you mayor members of council uh Adam your own city of Scottdale longrange planning department uh my counterpart if he's not already down here he is in the back Brad Carr with the city's current planning department uh will be here here to present uh 5gp 2021 number two and one ta 2021 relating to the Oldtown Scott sale updates initiative uh to provide some background on context as you're all familiar city council provided direction to review conduct public Outreach and potentially bring update to the city's Oldtown scotsville character area plan related sections of the city zoning ordinance uh that affect downtown uh address the downtown infil incentive District and plan and finally uh bring update to the Oldtown Urban Design and Architectural guidelines uh following the conclusion of this effort to provide some timeline and background on this process uh this effectively uh was started in June of 2021 with City council's adoption of the community's general plan uh at which point Council provided initiation to this update process uh then in November of 2021 the city uh received ratification by its vot voters to the community's general plan uh which really uh started our public Outreach process uh back in October of uh 2021 at that point uh we went on a series of open houses both in person and virtually uh as well as had a number of um non-action meetings and work study sessions with Planning Commission and city council uh that brought us to uh the the plan and and updates that we're bringing to you this evening city council also took their first big step in this process with the repeal of the downtown infil C of district and plan in September of 2023 and then uh specifically focusing on our policy oriented sections of this update process within the character area plan uh adoption of the uh Phase One updates within the character area plan in October of 2023 now throughout this process we've had public notification uh and writing we've had robust public Outreach and we've met with uh Community groups along the way um just to test uh every scenario that we've brought for before Council for their review and consideration uh and as I mentioned we've had a number of steps and policies that have kind of interwoven uh throughout the process uh but again it really is rooted in the general plan adoption uh that took place in 20121 and as I stated The Phase One updates uh that were adopted by Council in October of 3 now tonight's uh updates that are going to be presented really focus on the Oldtown scotsville character area plan as a policy document and then uh those corresponding sections of our city zoning ordinance uh that affect uh portions of uh the Oldtown area our Outreach topics that were discussed with the public and again they're going to be discussed more in Focus this evening are those items that were uh directed by city council those are all presented on screen available for folks that might be watching at home but the ones that are really going to be discussed and implemented through this phase two updates are those that are highlighted in yellow and we'll cover those uh in in Greater detail in the next series of slides and similar to past uh discussions with city council I'll take appropriate pauses along the way to to answer any questions if necessary to start with uh development types their designations locations and transitions Oldtown scotsville character area plan a policy document has used development types to guide location and intensity of development building height and building transitions uh this uh typology and how we apply uh uh these development types have been around since 1984 uh in the adoption of the original downtown plan uh the downtown plan was had its first major update in 2009 with the identification of the regional mix use uh area and downtown Medical Campus uh near the southeast corner of Second Street and Scottdale Road and then in 2018 we had another update to formalize the creation of the type 3 area as well as uh modify and expand upon the type 3 area and also add in our type 2.5 uh development type now throughout this public Outreach process what we heard was um specifically focused around development type support uh to continue to use the development type to guide development in Oldtown support to maintain the existing character of the downtown core and historic Oldtown and support for providing more sensitive building transitions between development types specifically uh for those building transitions adjacent to the type one areas or those least intense uh areas of our Oldtown area finally there was support for type 2.5 to be removed now with respect to these uh development types map and the changes that are going to be considered uh by Council this evening there's five keynote areas on this map and I'll cover them each uh on the next series of Slide the first being uh the deletion of the type 2.5 area that is that portion of the property of Oldtown rather at the northwest corner of Indian School and Goldwater Boulevard uh to be replaced with type two it is important to note uh that there are no properties that have downtown type 2.5 zoning all of uh what's being proposed this evening is not changing any anyone's specific entitlements these are this is as a policy document is um is guiding future development the keynote 2 area on the map is adding the notation of the historic Oldtown boundary to the development types Map There's a corresponding connection to our zoning ordinance where currently Heights are treated differently uh within this portion of our Oldtown area we're just acknowledging some significance to this area in the develop types met so that we can um show that there is um special consideration in this part of our Oldtown area keynote 3 is an area adjacent to the Arizona Canal being amended from type three to type two uh and you'll see on the top portion of the inset map on the left uh that this change is going back to what was um put forward in 2009 which was again a change at that time to go from type 1 to type type two so we're going back to type two with this proposal finally uh keynote 4 is an amending type two area at the southeast corner of Indian School in scottso roads to be type one and to be incorporated within the historic Oldtown boundary and then I'm sorry finally we're amending type one area at the northwest corner of Indian School Road in Marshall way to be type two as per a previous case approved by a city council in 1993 is a cleanup item to reflect existing conditions and entitlements afforded to that specific property now how we're managing these changes and the character area plan and then uh the dovetailing implementing portion of our zoning ordinance is that um we're creating effectively two maps with this proposal within our uh policy document of the Oldtown character area plan and within the zoning ordinance we're affording property Zone to the downtown district prior to the effective date of the updated changes being adopted can elect to comply with either the existing development types map on the left or the future Downtown Development types map on the right within a specified time period within the ordinance uh we've worked in a three-year time window in which uh developments that may have been um in development uh and have yet to be submitted uh could could seek uh submitt within a time period for them to have a determination made by city council again Parcels with downtown zoning in those areas that uh are proposed supposed to be changed with this uh proposal are shown on the screen before you in that type 2.5 area notably uh there are properties that are Zone type two but not type 2.5 and in that area on the top right portion of uh the the screen is an area that's designated to change from type three to type two in an area where there are only a couple properties that have type one zoning and all the other properties uh are designated with um more of the Antiquated historical uh uh zoning districts of C2 historical only in name not in actual designation but uh aren't as um don't promote as much of an urban environment as a downtown D District does and so mayor and city council we've just reviewed development types their designations locations and transitions um deleting type 2.5 and replacing it with type two adding the historic Oldtown boundary to the development types map amending type three three at the Arizona Canal to be type two amending type two at the southeast corner of Indian School on Scotts store road to type one amending the type 1 area at the northwest corner of Indian School and Marshall way to uh Marshall way to be type two and managing prospective amendments uh to preserve those property rights again as these changes are solely focused on uh the policy oriented uh sections of our character area plan and um again are not changing anyone's entitlements with this proposal uh mayor and city council I'm happy to take a pause at this time to entertain any questions or comments otherwise I can move forward thank you I see vice mayor Whitehead um I just want to say wow this has been such a puzzle to put together how do you amend this downtown character area plan that did have some pretty obvious flaws in it from 2018 in a way that um that protects private property rights and gives ample time for any property owner to uh speak up or take action so it's I'm been really impressed with staff's ability to take an awful lot of um stakeholders interests and balance it so that's all I don't have any questions thank you councilwoman Janik thank you mayor um I just wanted to reference slide 13 and the reason I wanted to reference it was just to show that there were inconsistencies and that the way different areas had been designated adjacent to the canal you can't do a proper transition when you're going from a three down to a one it just wasn't possible and this goes back to what councilwoman Salange Whitehead said um some of these things weren't doable and so we corrected uh some of these situations that became very ticklish and I think you have done a wonderful job pulling together so many different opinions and so much data so thank you okay I see myself and then council member Graham um you know one thing uh up to this point uh which I do want to uh point out is that uh there's been nearly 150,000 Outreach contacts uh made in our community uh they have spoken with the board of realtors uh Chamber of Commerce Scottsville leadership Oldtown partnership Etc so that is a very thorough vetting vetting of this whole process we started approximately 18 months ago and uh this is the second part of this uh discussion as we're we're moving forward uh with that I'll also mention that we don't have any U uh requests to speak on this so there's uh no opposition that we see and none appearing tonight council member Graham and then we'll continue with the next portion of your presentation thank you mayor Adam good presentation we've gone through this ad nauseum it's no complaints you've done a good job um what was the just out of curiosity what was the Inception of the the carve out cutout 2.5 there thank you council member gr mayor members of council uh in 2018 uh that uh designation was intended to try and promote Redevelopment uh of an area of an Old Town in which since 2018 and its designation we haven't received any proposals or or Council hasn't approved any I'm sure you protested it at the time and now it's you know realizing your true Vision correct I'm sorry I'm sure you protested it at the time and now it's realizing your true Vision uh you know I wasn't part of that process in 2018 oh that was that was the last guy right yes okay very good thank you mayor um yeah I I think it's you know very important to um point out the positives of the process and I uh in reviewing the the history of this uh uh original document basically starting in January of 2018 and then becoming the new ordinance the same year six months later was a very rushed uh uh aspect in my opinion and certainly is uh being U let's say right-sized and corrected with almost three times more deliberation which I think is very good and and I say that in a very positive way also I like the idea of a uh 36-month transition period which is just again an opportunity as uh any questions arise uh as we move forward so continue with the rest please thank you uh moving on to zoning ordinance base and bonus development standards uh when we spoke and had Outreach with the public concerning such there was support for the existing base height maximums that we'll cover on the next series of slides there was some support to maintain the existing bonus maximum height standards While others Express that the current uh bonus maximum height standards are too tall for the community and so what's proposed uh uh with these amendments is that we'll be maintaining the base Building height maximums afforded uh by uh On's entitlements and zoning ordinance but with respect to amending maximum bonus building Heights for prospective cases uh that are again predicated on the size of development uh that are that's brought before uh Planning Commission and Council to review and consider is that for the top tier development size uh projects designated type three uh maximum Building height is being reduced from 150 fet down to 115 for the mid-tier type three it's being reduced from 20 ft down to 102 and then for those type 2.5 designated areas as top tier greater than 200,000 sare ft in size or larger uh it's being reduced from 120 down to 102 now as I uh previously discussed there is a correlation between the development types map and uh what where height or bonus height could be achieved uh and so um this slide is really intended to communicate where these amended uh prospective cases could be considered uh based on potential timing as uh mayor you just made comment to but again these updates are anticipated to be perspective in order to preserve those existing property rights we just covered the base and bonus development standards uh mayor and city council I'm happy to take another pause uh or can move on as your direction okay we have uh council member Durham and then myself thank you mayor um I've reviewed the tape of the 2018 council meeting which established these bonus Heights very several times um and what the mayor said about uh these these being ill-considered and without deliberation is entirely correct I don't that the the heights were adopted without much discussion or debate or what the purpose of the bonus Heights was and so I'm glad we're revisiting that um sometimes people think compromise is a dirty word in politics but uh I think that's what we're we've done with a huge amount of Citizen input has uh brought us to what is a much better spot I think than what was adopted in 2018 so I uh I very appreciative of both the process and the results uh that are coming before us today thank you okay and I will add a comment here just um you know generally speaking um and trying to simplify this a bit uh you know we're setting policy and we're reviewing and testing uh what perhaps was well what was approved in 2018 and there was some acrimony about Heights and some things that were granted and such but it's sort of like you know having a like a speed limit say there's a speed limit of 60 MPH and that's common and then someone says Gee let's make it 160 miles an hour now uh that can cause a lot of acrimony and someone might say you know I've got a Porsche or I've got a Lambo and I can drive 200 miles an hour and I feel like you know thank you I want to be able to ride drive at least 160 m well it's not workable and that's a good thing because we have the purview to just rightsize it and I think it was test tested in terms of uh not uh being agreeable with our Oldtown and uh certainly the energy that we've seen in Oldtown is attributed at every scale it's not just because big money and big Heights are coming to Scottdale it's the Investments that people are making in single stories and two story projects that give us the character that we all appreciate uh the other Improvement that we have since 2018 is we have a a general plan it has a statement about Oldtown it has a statement about having a legacy and you can't rebuild 70 years of character right uh it it certainly needs replacement here and there but it continues to thrive so that's why in speaking I think having this great conversation even though there was quite a bit of turmoil and other things we we don't want to go backwards but I'm just saying that then then re-evaluating and saying xeed on this uh Corridor or whatever is really where it should be so that's why I I I think we have had this healthy conversation in a positive way councilwoman caputi thank you mayor great presentation Adam we've seen this so many times I can't imagine how many other times we have to see this so um you know we've all had a lot of time to give comments um you know and we spent three years as you pointed out making these changes so we've had plenty of time to um to have our say um I just wanted to I'm listening to the comments and the only thing I really want to say I agree this was amazingly difficult we had to land a plane taking into effect into account all sorts of different private property rights tweaking little things I I I think I was making the note of one through five the different little things we've done took a huge amount of change sort of narrowed it down to not being you in my opinion wildly impactful just sort of correcting some of the things that didn't work um but I when we had our private meeting I kept asking you why were these changes made in 2018 I can't maybe it was um in the moment it seemed quick I know councilman Durham just said he watched the council meeting and it seemed like it happened um on you know sort of without much that but I can't believe that a previous Council would have just said let's just bring up the the Heights and so I asked you over and over why what was their thinking and I just your answer was always because we had nothing coming at that point we were scared uh investment was slowing down and we were trying our best to encourage uh Redevelopment in our downtown so for me I just am a little bit leery about um moving guard rails down too far so that I would rather have all of the great projects come to us and we we can always say you know the speed limit was too high on that but I would rather have all the great projects filter them out and be able to be so picky like we are on this Council rather than have people say um I'm not going to bother because I'm being limited down now so again I just I'm very nervous about decreasing flexibility I'm I'm comfortable with this because I know at the end of the day this Council has the ability to say yes or no to anything that comes before us but it does m give me pause to put ourselves into a box where we're decreasing flexibility I never want to decrease flexibility I always want to see the best of the best projects um so I'm just a teeny bit hesitant but so far nothing here is alarming to me so I'm ready to move on thank you councilwoman Janik and then continue with oh councilwoman janick and then then council member Grant thank you mayor um I know that there's a lot of people that are fearful of the changes we're making especially the development Community but I think what this does is it adds predictability and Clarity to our policies I think we've landed in a good spot because we've had so much advice from staff they've listened to us they've responded legal has done a great work planning has done great work as well um for the present we have that three-year window we will listen to what people bring forward what they have concerns and then in the future what we've done is we've indicated that we do want to lessen some of the height and density so um I think that we are in a really good spot and I think that as we proceed it will be a benefit to the developers to know where we are why we're there and where we want to be in the future so thank you council member Graham thank you mayor I just want to agree with a couple of my colleagues I thought that in 2018 I was on the Transportation Commission so I was I was following Council closely and then I got on the Planning Commission in 2020 and um we had to deal with some of this especially with some of the downtown um zoning applications that we were dealing with plus we redid um some of the uh parking code there that really related a lot to downtown and so I looked at this very closely and the downtown character plan was it was it was Breeze through and it I would say in atttention um it was something I think that the deliberation at that point was not what it deserved and this council is is backfilling a lot of that attention that it deserves so I'll make that comment thank you mayor thank you continue please thank you mayor members of council uh we'll move on to the consideration of development flexibility in the plan the zoning ordinance and ultimately our Urban Design and Architectural guidelines with respect to the provision of development flexibility what we heard from the public was support for maintaining development flexibility provided within the Oldtown character area plan and zoning ordinance participants also Express that non-contiguous Parcels should be cons should not be excuse me uh considered for plan block development requests and so um what's proposed as Parcels within a proposed plan block development request U must be contiguous we have an example on the top right portion of the screen being one that is not contiguous uh based on what's proposed and one on the bottom right portion of the screen that would be considered contiguous and that adjacent right away with and alleys would be considered as contributing to the contiguity of parcels uh with what's proposed we just covered what's being proposed within this provision of development flexibility I'll take another pause uh Mayors mayor members of council to entertain any commentary or I'm happy to move on at your direction thank you I like what's happening so far um I just want to bring up another Point uh in some developments in Oldtown when you say non-contiguous they they some of them that I saw in particular South Bridge 2 or whatever um not Not only was it not contiguous it hopped from one block to another but it didn't even have ownership or even semi options on some of these properties so it you know there there's a little bit of there's a wholesale speculation that that goes into some of these uh so-called assemblages and that's where you know fact has to be separated from speculation that's just you know trying to G Garner the highest density and the highest height and all that stuff when there's really no direct ownership that starts to complicate things I think this is moving in the right direction that just make sure that all of those uh Parcels uh you know are looked at the continuous Nature has to occur but I'm also cautious about it I I know that projects can come forward when they're not even owned by the full developer but they they end up being part of the speculative deal uh counc member Durham councilwoman Janik and then we'll move on thank you thank you mayor um on another project I did some research into what the definition of a pbd uh was or should be and I totally agree with this new approach I I thought that the uh the action of the prior C well under the prior Council this was allowed to uh classify as a pbd even though these projects are quite separated as you can see from the map and that was completely contrary to what my understanding of a pbd should be based on Research I did the pbd is really designed to uh master plan a certain plot of land or contiguous plots of land into kind of a master plan and when you have property scattered all over like this that's just not the purpose of a PB so I'm very happy about this change thank you and um you know at this time let me just call on councilwoman Littlefield and then we'll get to councilwoman Janik councilwoman uh yes thank you mayor uh I have read over this and I uh totally approve of it I think it takes a lot of the problems that were in the uh previous set of plans and removes them this is this is something that's needed to be done for quite a while and I think it's going to make a much smoother and more uh complete downtown area that we can work with and that will be better for all of our citizens I like it very much and I think it's a a very good deal so I like this character area plan thank you councilwoman Littlefield next we go to councilwoman Janik thank you mayor um I want to really thank council member Durham for his work on this you looked at the map in blue the upper map and right away you said these partials are not contiguous and it seemed that that had not been mentioned prior to what you said and unfortunately we were not on councel then so I also looked to see if you defined the word contiguous because I looked in Websters and a couple different definitions to me I thought it was properties that border each other other definitions were if points of the properties are kitty corner from each other I would ask if you could please to find contiguous in the glossery I think that's a key Point here thank you thank you well thank you and I think these illustrations also support the dialogue that uh the uh public saw uh next continue with um the bonus Provisions I suppose or continue thank you mayor moving on to ensuring that bonus Provisions within the ordinance if maintained provide greater and better defined public benefits uh with respect to bonus Provisions what we heard was support for public benefits to continue to use uh public benefits as a consideration of bonus development standards and flexibility uh that would be again for be for amended development standards additional F density uh or height participants favored public open space major infrastructure improvements and pedestrian amenities there was support for expanding the definition of public improvements within the zoning ordinance as well as adding new list a new list uh to the public benefits that would contribute to the provision of Public Safety in Oldtown renewable energy and elevated quality design what's proposed uh with this amendment is that for those pbd proposals that include requests for bonus development standards again additional height F or density there will be a requirement to provide public open space and again it's predicated on the size of a development proposal whether it be between 100 to 200,000 Square fet in size would be required 2 and a half% of its overall site to be allocated towards public open space or those greater than 200 200,000 square fet or more in size be required to provide 5% these public open space areas and would provide public access to the public uh but would be determined through development agreement between the property owner and the city so as to not burden the city with long-term maintenance uh on such areas additionally with respect to the current bonus Provisions that uh can be considered by city council which are those uh eight items shown on the right side portion of the screen uh we're also rightsizing our current public open space minimum requirement from will be reduced from 18, 18,000 Square ft to 10,000 square fet in size again when considering uh the fragmentation of and and size of overall Parcels within our old 10 area we have yet to have a proposal that utilizes uh such bonus provision and we feel that we're right sizing the space uh so that it can be uh used in considered over time so with respect to uh open space with what we've just covered we've talked about when we'll require Open Spaces within our Oldtown area for those uh applications that seek bonus requests uh predicated on the size of development and then we'll we've T discussed adjusting the minimum requirement for excess open space within those bonus requests uh to be used for an offset to uh public benefit uh for those bonus Provisions we've just reviewed ensuring that bonus Provisions within the ordinance if maintained would provide those greater and better defined public benefits uh mayor and city council happy to take another pause at this time vice mayor whitee yeah I would like to thank councilwoman Janik and councilman durm they took on that contiguous problem so I do want to thank them also and I think all of us I also I was at at the meeting and I watched the 2018 meeting I think it's the most watched meeting in the history of Scottdale um over and over again the people on the council said that this is a height for open space Trade and they did not deliver because they didn't require open space and that's how we got projects like Southbridge 2 which when I asked is there any open space the response was that's not required and clear that was a monster project so this is a fix that I think is just crucial I always point to the Waterfront that was our first height for open space Trade and it has made our downtown so incredibly valuable so I just want to um thank staff and all of my colleagues up here for helping to ensure that in fact if we say we're going to do a height for open space Trade we're actually going to require open space public open space thank you um let's see I have a comment and then council member Durham um the it's just kind of a refinement but I think it's very important one that may follow with the ordinance uh adoption at some point and that is uh the bonus does provide flexibility and we we can agree with that uh the problem that I have is one of the bonuses on height is basically a fee paid for the whole project and that I don't think is correct I think if if there are buildings towards the edges uh so in other words uh it I believe it should be a bonus and that incentive should be per building or that cost per building because as you get closer to a transition Peri uh point with another type then um and and if it's prudent to to allow that one height at that level great but if it can step down and if it's paid per building not just for the whole project so I noticed that in several of the cases where the height allowance was just spread over the whole site even though there may be multiple buildings when in fact uh that refinement I think could be considered it still allows flexibility inward as you're in inside of a type three or whatever but uh paying uh whatever it was x per foot uh I think it was 13,000 or whatever was uh very minimal to get height bonus on multiple buildings that's just a one of the refinement points that I we I agree that the U open space is very good and valuable and adjusting it downward from 18,000 down to 10 is a nice is is suitable in this case because it uh recognizes the the conditions out there council member Durham and then we'll continue with the with the uh uh program thank you mayor um one of the projects it came before the council before I was on the council uh the developer offered a public benefit which was uh prettier trash cans and I I always thought that you know this is Scottsdale we should have pretty cash trash cans as a given you it shouldn't be a a benefit that you get extra height for so uh the clause for major infrastructure improvements I think would cover that um you know pretty trash cans aren't going to be enough anymore uh under these bonus Provisions as I view it it needs to be something more substantial than that okay I see no other questions let's continue and uh as we uh move forward with item number 10 go ahead thank you uh mayor members of city council uh just to bring to your attention some of the recommendations that were brought forward uh from PL the January 24th meeting of Planning Commission in which uh there was a recommended approval 61 uh there was uh to be some very specific recommendations um which weren't as part part of their uh approval uh but were included in your agenda packet that I just want to address not only for you but for the record and that was to include language within the ordinance at sunsets the type 2.5 development type within the downtown D zoning District after the established uh time period for city council to make a determination has expired uh uh We've they were they requested that we establish additional standards to qualify properties as contiguous and the application of the plan block development overlay District uh and to that point if I may just ask that the Elmo be used um for just a moment and I I hope this may address councilwoman Janik um your question which within the ordinance excuse me within the ordinance uh if that could be zoomed in uh We've defined those qualifying parcels and I'll just read it uh if you if you may not be able to see it is that for vment projects with multiple Parcels such as part set such Parcels must be contiguous and under single ownership or control to meet the gross lot minimum uh adjacent RightWay and alleys will be considered as contributing to the contiguity of parcels Parcels with offset boundaries must have a minimum of 20 linear feet of adjacent boundary to be considered as contributing to the contiguity gross lot minimum size U if you had any questions on that point uh happy to to address it but just wanted to make sure that that satisfied what you were looking for you know what I don't want to add this more to this presentation but if you could go back to your example of continuous and noncontiguous uh which is slide 26 and this is what I understand you to be saying referring to the upper diagram in blue that that parcel uh that is very irregular shape between Camelbeach and Schuman Lane on the left side of the slide that could not be included in the calculation of square footage for bonuses is that correct if if that if the if the property at Camelback and Schuman met the minimum size by itself it could be it could be uh used as a as a single parcel that would request bonuses if if this application needed to depend on those properties that are not at Camelback and Schuman also shown in Blue on the screen right uh based on what we've written within the zoning ordinance Amendment uh we could not repeat a similar application that's what I thought so that that lower rectangle off of ston south of ston would not add that in fore application correct okay thank you thank you I I see vice mayor Whitehead and then councilwoman caputi thank you I want to make a motion on item number 10 Oldtown scussel character area plan Phase 2 and the downtown and plan block development zoning districts updates 5gp 2021 number two and 1 ta 2021 I request that we adopt resolution number 13008 authorizing a minor Amendment to the scale General plan 2035 by amending and updating the Old Town character area plan number to adopt ordinance number 4629 amending the city of Scottdale zoning ordinance uh for the purpose of amending section 5.3 section 6.1 section 6.13 section 7.12 and other applicable SE sections of the zoning ordinance to prospectively update specific names definitions District size requirements subdistricts use regulations development types devel M plan requirements property development standards the ability to Grant discretionary bonus Provisions Andor bonus development standards and related Citywide requirements as provided in case number one ta 2021 and number three adopt resolution number 13058 declaring the document entitled Oldtown zoning districts text amended to be public record second and I'll just speak to my second um also so uh thanking staff and all the participants everything is of record uh and um it's it's it's it's a trip to get here and it's a trip to enjoy Scotsdale that we know and love and I think it's a tribute to everyone who's uh uh studied and participated uh councilwoman caputi and then we'll have a vote again in general I think we've done a really good job um of course making an area designated as historic Old Town we've always wanted and needed to do that um again I really don't have any major objections this slide that just described the little highlight with the contiguous you don't necessarily have to bring it back up but we're talking about how many folks would even I mean it's so hard to qualify for that right it's written so carefully now you're probably talking about less than a handful of projects that would ever fall into that category right uh councilwoman caputi yeah we would it's a fluid it's fluid and it would be based on ownership or control and so uh the intent was to as as uh council member Durham remarked upon it's really to um make use of the purpose of the plan block development District so making sure that those properties are closest together are Master planed right which makes a lot of sense again it's not going to impact a whole lot of um different developments and two point .5 getting rid of that as you pointed out no one's ever used 2.5 so great it doesn't impact anything so you know again it's it's just not a big deal um the slide you had up talking about no one's ever taken advantage of our offer to put in that extra amount of open space um for tra right trading off for more open space so we're going to lower it down to see if we can't get someone to bite so again I just I just want to point out that the original intent was to make sure that we had good projects that we had the ability to be flexible that we encouraged Redevelopment and development in our in our downtown area it didn't necessarily you know some of the things they suggested didn't necessarily work we're in a great place right now and the economy is in a good spot at the moment again let's let's make sure that we're not shortsighted we might want more Tools in our toolbx at some point in the future but nothing in here really makes a huge amount of change and so I'm comfortable agreeing um with the motion thank you okay and I did hear an affirmation from um councilwoman Littlefield anything to add BEC and then I go to vice mayor whad and we'll vote no I think uh thank you mayor I think this fixes a lot of the problems that were embedded in the in the current um plan and I think that this is a a big upside to what we can do with our downtown so thank you thank you vice mayor Whitehead one little correction for councilwoman caputi um I just want everybody to make sure that um I personally and most a lot of my colleagues were not waiting for developers to come and offer open space we've been negotiating it for the last five years and we've had great success uh Museum squares one project that has 30% of the total land is open space because of negotiations for from Council so thank you and I think we're ready to vote thank you we have motion a second please record your vote Council mfield oh I heard her say yes there yes thank you we are unanimous and we will move on to item 10A in our regular agenda hi good evening mayor members of council Alison timu city engineer um the item you have before you item 10A is the gravity sewer tournament Players Club TPC Golf Course to North pump G station project construction phase contract Amendment okay so this action is actually in two parts the first purpose of the ACT action is to authorize the second guaranteed maximum price GMT gmp2 for construction phase Services of the first segment of the gravity sewer TPC Golf Course to North pump pack station the second purpose of the action is to request fiscal year 2220 2023 24 budget transfers of up to 25 million to The Greenway Hayden Loop sewer Improvement Capital project so if you recall on December 4th of 2023 Council approved the construction manager at RIS construction phase services with Ain Gardener construction and that was for purchasing of the long lead um materials namely the pipe for the project this award is for the construction manager risk construction phase Services contract modification with aen Garder in the amount of 8,31 994 for GMP number two and that's for the construction of the sewer line and then the third GMP will be presented to council later in 2024 to complete the pipeline into the North pumpback Station okay on this map if you look on the lower right hand corner where it's that lime green colored line that is the location of this construction and it is going across the TPC um it will go from Hayden Road until just about the Pim Frontage Road and it's about 4500 linear feet of pipe in that area and then again mentioned previously the third GMP will be that short red section that's on the lower right hand corner of this map and that will bring it um north to south into the existing pump back station and then with that I'll turn it over to Brian beas me who will present the budget transfers yeah thank you Allison um Brian be me executive director for Scott Stell waterer and as you know the city engineer and the CPM group they they construct our projects but obviously the budget comes out of Scottdale water infrastructure Improvement plan um and that's a plan for development that is used to set our impact fees the budget was based on 2019 2020 estimated project cost and dollars we've seen accelerated inflation we've also there's also a large increase in the size due to development in the area of this particular pipeline I showed this last year when we talked about budgets just to kind of emphasize what's happened with construction CPI and how much construction cost has increased and just a little reminder of the the inflation that we have seen in construction addition to that inflation there's a been a higher density in the area which caused us to increase the size of the pipeline not only increase the size of the pipeline originally we were going to take a 24 inch Pipeline and just replace it with a 36 now we're using that 24 inch and we're introducing a brand new 36 on top of that so it's uh significant more cost and there's complexities of going through the burm um on Pima Road that's that's uh next to TPC which is the Bureau Reclamation burm and it's a dam basically and there's some complexities that we're going to basically have to Jack and bore underneath that to ensure we can get the sewer line in there so for those reasons we've seen the budget go from originally plannned to six million to close to $31 million so how are we planning on getting there well we have several projects we'd like to just close out um you see on the left and then we have one the Rio verie 128th Street transmission main that we would like um to transfer the the basically we're going to transfer the budget approval and then we'll reestablish that Authority next year as I come to you with the a CIP budget later this year and the net would be zero the plan for this is originally a development fee project with getting the funds back from development that occurs to wa to ensure that development pays for this there'll be additional paybacks set for development as it comes into the area so as development occurs they'll this cost addition or this Delta this change in cost will be transferred to those developments on a per capacity basis so as each development comes off there will be additional sewer charges placed on that development as it goes into the area and that's the way we plan to pay back this increased cost over time and so with that uh the recommendation to council is to authorize resol resolution 10 pending your questions that concludes my briefing yes I see council member Durham and councilwoman Janik and I'm just going to point out I don't see any requests from the public to speak so um we I'll I'll be closing public testimony on this matter but council member Durham and then councilwoman Janik thank you mayor on the slide number nine the transfer impacts um all of the amounts shown is negative what what does that mean does that mean we're not going to build or fund the various things that are listed there um most of the all those listed there um except for the new pump back station all those are projects we can close out um they have either they have been accomplished and we don't need that funding the uh first one is the new pump back and we are um wishing to close that out as we re-evaluate the need need for a additional pump sewage pump back station in lie of the city of Phoenix's plan for their direct Pall reuse and their ability to get us water back so we'd like to pause that take the funding away from that pause that until we can correctly um analyze what the City of Phoenix uh is planning with their new facility and what potential water we can get back from that but but at some point does that imply that that we would need that money again depending on what happens in the future with Phoenix we may I just don't know the timing of that in instead we would just like to pull that over now and we would reestablish that funding obviously would have to get Council approval to reestablish funding for something either that or um contributions to the City of Phoenix plan but the other the others of that shown here are these situations where the project has been closed out and we have Surplus money remaining from the project that's correct okay and um could you just show us on the map exactly how this is going to work and what's going on here where the where the flows are going I guess we're voting on The Green Piece tonight but I this is this is the green the um the other segments are being being uh currently constructed as part of the Optima development and so those orange phases are are currently being under construction this piece here is the green as uh Allison pointed out this is the green leg and the red leg and so this is starting on the far side of on the west side of Hayden and then proceeding all the way through the TPC to the Puma Road or the 101 ACC ACC Road and then down towards the north pump St back station which is shown in white at the bottom right corner of the of the map okay and then from there it goes down to from there it's pumped up to our water campus oh oh that station was was originally constructed with the capacity to take all these flows was designed with the extra capacity and this is just getting those sewage flows there and then back to our water campus up to the water campus okay all right thank you councilwoman Janik thank you mayor for the most part I had the same exact question that council member Durham did but I'm going to ask you to go back over slide nine again so $25 million is the adjustment we need that money to pay for this project the new pump back that 6 million um we're getting that back the project is done we're happy with it no that that that's the one project that has not been done okay but that's the project we'd like to pause we think we can take it off our our books now because um if the City of Phoenix direct pable reuse project proceeds forward and we're in discussions with them that would alleviate the need to build that pump back as as well as the in intense amount of Road disruption and of a pipeline coming back North uh from center part of Scottdale so it alleviate that need that that $6 million was purely just for the land and preliminary design of a large pump back station um which we'd like to pause and and we think there's other Alternatives right now instead of that okay and then the next one the 3 million 267,000 that is a project that then is completed and the money is there that is correct and then the one after that the East Dynamite area transmission same correct thing and then state land near Legend trails state land at Legend Trails I've got um Gina or Scott marah is Scott Scott still here I mean no offense but I don't want us to be kicking the can down the road looking at these numbers and saying this is great but then a year or two it comes back and probably more expensive I'm gonna I'm going to have Scott okay give you the detailed answer on that one okay thank you my name is Scott Mars uh Water Resource engineer the project you're talking about is being deferred it is not completed we plan to establish that budget and funding down down about five to seven years from now okay so five to seven years in the future there may be a need but right now we can there is the need does not exist right now Council maganic that's correct the development and growth has not hit that particular parcel of state land thus the infrastructure is not needed for many years in the future we project okay and then the Rio verie 128 Street transmission that one is going to go to the next year's budget saying there that project is partially built by a developer which we're going to reimburse but the majority of that project is again out into the future because de development hasn't yet required the need for that infrastructure and when do you anticipate that there will be a need for that infrastructure when would we need it when you anticipate yeah right now preserve Ranch is the only development that's out in that area um that is building part of the infrastructure a small segment of the water line um other developers that might come in for residential housing would be the next need um our best guess on when that might be would be three to seven years okay all right thank you thank you I want to point out a couple things uh first of all that the um these improvements of course water goes with the uh sewer and water in and then recapturing the uh recycling water is very essential I do want to point out that although these State lands which are in uh our city limits um they are providing and planning so that we excavate the road once we don't have to uh redig upsize put another pipe in as projects come forward these are planned uh areas with u assets and water and seore that we expect I do want to point out that um none of the improvements which our rate payers are looking at involve any any land in um on the Phoenix side of Scottdale Road and I say that because there there have been some questions coming to me about the possibility of a hockey arena and another Fashion Square size project on the west side of Scottdale Road uh there is no infrastructure on the west side of Scottdale Road and uh we have no responsibility or obligation for that area nor do we in the county areas towards R verie um and as projects come online they start paying back these fees soon as they get an occupancy permit then they're they're flushing toilets and they're using water and and we're ready for them with that I would move to adopted uh resolution number 13040 authorizing first of all CMR uh construction manag manager at risk construction phase service contract 2023 -201 Coos A1 with aen Gardner Contracting the amount of1 18,30 1 1994 to provide Phase 2 Construction Services as stated the second item is for FY 20232 24 Capital Improvement plan CIP budget transfers up to $25 million from Rio ver 128 Street transmission Mains as stated in our packet and um all these to be funded by sewer rates second thank you we have a motion a second do you want to speak to your second just a quick question the pump back was that this was that from to get um our Wastewater from Indian Bend is that the pumpback uh vice mayor yes that is correct okay thank you we have uh a motion and a second we have comment from council member Graham and then councilwoman caputi thanks Brian for your presentation um may be a little more critical here the um it's 423 cost overrun and we're seeing cost reason for cost increase is budget accelerated inflation increased size of sewer due due to development demand um it was put together just a few short years ago and the numbers in the construction inflation is 7% 30% 18% but it's not 400% can you say just a little more about some of those increases because it just it's just not adding up to me council member Graham uh yes it's obviously not just an upsizing of a single sewer it's now building building a parallel sewer through that entire ire area um so yeah it's a tremendous upsizing in that in that sewer so it's not just the inflation it's basically building that that project plus a new project of equivalent size through that through that and it's really the upsizing of it okay and and was that was that decision made in 2021 about we were just going to replace it and then we were going to add a second one when was that decision made was that in uh that was made uh that would have been made in planning probably post 2021 okay and do you have any idea why why the Judgment between what changed between at that point and now about adding a second one because we kind of knew what we kind of knew right what kind of development would go in there what kind of what kind of need there would be or is this because we or is this because Council rezoned certain land uh there is some resoning there is um additional changes in the types of uh industry going into some areas some may requires rezoning some may not we also have to when you put a sewer in the ground we want to look for the ultimate case and not something less so if we don't then you're stuck having you do a third sewer in that place and so so we undoubtedly there is some conservativism in there to allow us to take development that is larger than the current zoning well I I do agree there is conservatism because we're able to pull from so many other projects that we don't need the money for and we found Legend trails that was in the budget we thought we needed that but that's going to be deferred um we conservatively budgeted for a lot of these projects but we didn't really seem to conservatively budget for this one and I guess maybe it was 2021 there were changes rezonings um a clear picture of what the need was um it's just it's just a tremendous amount I mean I you know I think about okay well we missed it by 10% we missed it by 50% but 400% so Scott Still Waters world class I believe when it's it's said when you guys say it's needed I believe you I'm a little bit uncomfortable with 400% increase because this is a tremendous amount of money it's so much money I think that it kind of shakes confidence a little bit in the city um but I believe that it's needed and which is why I'm going to vote Yes um but maybe there was something at some point we didn't in the planning stages or the con ctual stages I mean is there some step was there some step where we can point to and we we learn from and said aha we are constrained mayor and and Council council member Graham we're constrained when we set up the impact fees when we do that that's a state requirement that we have to go through a certain process we tie that to our general plan we tie that to zoning we try tie that to to known development and the amount of Wastewater coming from those known developments we go through the process we try to match those timing is always a difficult thing for a water utility to figure out because we're the tail part of this um and so we do as best we can we put that together that plan and and bring it to council as our plan going forward when things occur we bring them back again I would like to go back to the part that while these increases are there our intent is to get that back from development as it comes in so development continues to pay for that Delta in that uh price is that is that future development or is that all development I guess from current existing rate payers but also when the developers come in and that's they pay those impact fees that's not impact fees that's development from that area that services that sewer specifically MH so as development in that area occurs and a development connects to that sewer they would be charged additional fees um we're not borrowing money this is all we're all paying cash this is kind of a payo process this is a pay as you go yeah okay well like I said I mean it's um it's a tremendous variance um maybe at some point we can learn more um not comfortable with it but I trust scottd water which is worldclass institution and uh you know it seems like there's some changes that happened between when this was planned and today and as far as rezonings and other things that have changed circumstances and some changes in the ground truth so thank you Mr thank you Brian for taking my questions and uh I don't know if the city manager just because of the size or scope of this override has has anything to add sure I I don't that's not the subject right now they have Quantified things we have a construction manager at risk those those are the experts it's not for you or me to say that we will now uh question it they're all stipulated as to the process through the state law so we're not going to Tinker with the numbers and short change and cause problems in the future because the developers are going to pay the bill okay that's the way it's written and that project is a a risk factor in terms of water sourcing which we we we've charged a fee for that since uh 1987 we were the first city to charge them so they could we could build for that second thing is this is all going to be uh cash as it is developed with at least for instance the prin is there we don't want to keep digging up every time and ask for let's save half the money by putting in a smaller line there and disrupt the princess two years from now with another line okay this is the best practice that has already been established and I'm not really I don't think we're here to now discuss how we can chip away at all the process that's prepared for us the mo the motion is to approve funding transfers so that this can get built in a timely manner not not whether or not it's you feel uncomfortable about it or not because the developers are going to have to pay the price they're going to have to pay the price for every part of this and and we we have to cause the least disruption to our citizens and their businesses along that way that's the whole benefit cost benefit that we have I'm going to have to you're you're starting to wander into another area that not Mr Mayor I'm simply asking questions about the item that's on the agenda that residents may want to know about well we have already all the backup material there's a contractor ready to go and and we have a a process for that the question I think is asked and answered the question is are we going to transfer funds to cover the cost that's what's on the agenda not to what extent a um it could be altered from the Das right now it's not that was that's not that's not that that wasn't my line of questioning my question was how did we get here we we are here because we have as I said an obligation for certain land uses and to uh build in our right of way that make sure that there's the least disruption and that they plan ahead and those costs are not to be uh frankly uh construction manager at risk they have to report to us constantly if something comes less like asphalt is going down in price we'll have a savings of of that we we can cut off discussion mayor if you'd like okay well I think we're we're ready to vote on this but please I had one other comment from councilwoman caputi and then I I think we should call for a vote go ahead thank you just really quick because actually some of my points have already been mentioned but I just want to reiterate so I'm clear I liked the point that the mayor made we are going to dig excavate once which makes perfect sense we're going to lay in enough infrastructure to make sure that we have the capacity for our future plans and then as these developments go in development is going to pay for development so this is a really decent plan again the costs are large but it's pay as you go so development is paying for development and we are uh adding you know infrastructure is growing as we grow so I have that correct uh councilwoman caputi that is correct that's the intent um I do share in Council councilman Graham's concern I don't want to be up here pitching something with this large a cost it is it is disconcerting I understand it's it's big our intent however is to allow development to pay for development as we go and not put this on our rate payers but it is a big project it has had some some scope large scope changes as well as a lot of inflation but better to do it once and right than to go back and have to make it bigger later I mean it is so especially reimbursed and painful to go back later here correct okay thank you I'm comfortable okay I have uh last remark councilwoman chanik then we will vote on the agenda item thank you thank you mayor Brian about how many years do you look into to the Future to project the need that you're that we're going to be paying for 10 20 30 years when we set our impact fees they look 15 when we do our Master plans they look between 40 and 50 years in advance when we do these but our impact fee look was just a 15-year look that set the original project so one would expect that this money would be paid back within 15 years that is the normal projection yes that that development occurs to pay that in 15 years for impact fees in this area I I would anticipate even faster okay thank you okay uh we have a motion a second please record your vote yes okay we are unanimous next we will U move to the next at this point we are moving to um the opportunity for public comment public comment is when someone can come forward speak for three minutes and we have two requests to speak uh in this case uh you will come forward um on any non- agendized item I have uh Brent beaser and I have Lee cofell cof good evening mayor city council uh Brent beaser 7317 East Vista Drive um I think this is my fourth time I've been here talking about this um and I've been including yall in the emails I've been um working with Aaron peral and as a zoning administrator um on this little office building property located on the northeast corner of Vista and Scottdale Road I just live few doors down the street from it um just to give you an update um because three of the council members actually Council woman janic um councilman Graham and the vice mayor Whitehead basically said you know the the key to these kind of problems is persistence so um I'm going to be a painting the keester for you all here um right now I'm going through the board of adjustments um process I received some unusual interpretations from the zoning administrator regarding zoning application uh the application of the zoning ordinance for the SR and the parking ordinance and um I'm going to the board of adjustment basically not asking for an exception I'm asking for enforcement of it the way that it's written so um I have my first prea meeting coming up here um Thursday so um we got that moving forward um I did want to bring you up to speed here and I did include this get the overhead um I did track down this document this is the easement that is the you know kind of the poison pill that has done the the most damage to our little neighborhood here and this thing was put in place in 98 and um I did send this or I I did ask Aon about what the status of this was as far as Scottsdale because this was actually written and approved by town of Paradise Valley basically helping themselves to Scottsdale land and one of the things that was written in there that was included as an attachment was the Scottdale Sr zoning ordinance and it's actually you can see it right there it's it is a legal attachment to the document and what was incl included in it is the clouded paragraph basically this is back when the city of Scottdale actually required by ordinance that all Sr projects whether it's a new construction or a remodel has to go before the Dr board and um for whatever reason the city of Scottdale got rid of this and allowed the staff to be able to make these kind of judgment calls and they have not done well with it so um so we think we have the ability to actually have this go before the Dr board um the um zoning administrator Perell did say that even though Scottdale was not a party to this easement that she did consider it as valid in an email that she did send to me on the 30th I thought somebody had a question there so um you know I think the probably the I gota move fast here okay this was what was approved by the city of Scottdale by the Dr board and this this is what was basically proposed by the applicant and I'm an architect mayor I know you're an architect as well I mean there is no way that anybody could say that this that was approved by the Dr board is in keeping with this new design this is a massive change in the design and according to the ordinance if a design proposal for Sr substantially Alters what was approved by the Dr board it has to go back to the Dr board thank you sir and uh you had an extra half a minute there so I appreciate it and it's uh we cannot respond to you here because it's not agendized and uh we'll move on uh lee cul C hi thanks for let me come back up again uh last name it's just cough and tile nice easy so I know it looks weird though uh appreciate the effort uh again I live at a corner basically at uh Thomas and Miller uh 7726 East Thomas Road um I just was listening to some of the comments that came up here uh talking about traffic and I just uh it's something I care a lot about uh I'm on the transportation board but just to be clear I'm not representing the transportation board here and I just wanted to bring first to say uh whether you're a pedestrian a cyclist a uh Transit Rider or a driver when you're using scotdale roads you all want the same thing which is less drivers um you know just makes it easier to get around I also wanted to bring up the idea of something called brace Paradox uh there have been uh many examples uh worldwide we actually taking away Road capacity actually increases con or decreases congestion time time and the way it works is when you see a big wide openen Road you want to use that road and that pulls all the all the volume from the side streets that you would normally use to go towards what you think is the easiest way to go and so there have been in as recent as 2008 in Boston when they closed down a major artery congestion times actually decreased in there while they did road work um and so the I and so ask somebody who lives on Thomas I look at the traffic and I hear people talking about how they just uh we need more Lanes in order to solve the traffic and when I look at it the only way to have zero uh traffic on uh zero congestion on Thomas would be to take my house away from me and just add another five Lanes on each side and then we would and that way there would be enough capacity for everybody to not have to deal with that um you know which I don't think is a reasonable solution for dealing with congestion just like we were talking with the pyute this Council in this city has done uh Innovative outside the box thinking and I think the issue of traffic deserves uh some outside the box thinking because we have been in this country we've been adding lanes for 70 years and it has not resolve the congestion problem it just continually makes it worse for people um on the issue of safety I heard somebody talk about 68 Street and how that puts people uh in In Harm's Way I used to ride 68th before the work uh the work was done on my bicycle uh it was not safe to ride that road either on the sidewalk because they were narrow and weaved and you would uh conflict with pedestrians uh who get priority on there as they should or if you rode in the if you rode in the street people because that was a four lane road would pass you quickly and close and uh I have been pushed several times with that uh the other thing I just want to say is just about history since the freeway since the loop system has been put in we see at least 20 years of history that volume on our streets has stayed steady as our population has increased so thank you I have a lot more but I thank you sir well finally we and now I will close public comment move on to um citizen petition item number 11 um we were uh provided with a petition provided U by uh gentleman and he uh made a quick presentation um earlier so we have accepted at the clerk's um office his uh written petition uh with that the U uh we are not uh to discuss the particulars of the case but at this point we have accepted a petition and I think there's some clarification uh that there are three uh actions that we could take one is direct city manager to agendize a petition for further discussion the other is to direct city manager to investigate the matter and prepare a written response to the council uh with a copy to the petitioner and take no action would be item number three uh in this case there's an entire process U regarding um you know um actions by U other commit committees uh so therefore I would move uh item number two direct city manager to investigate the matter prepare a written response to the council so that we'll be better prepared I'll I'll second that there is a lot of misinformation about what the city is doing with roads the word flexibility was used I think by many of us on the dis today um so for instance 100 Street there's no Lane reductions proposed but because there's so much misinformation I do think it would be good to take the road sections in this petition and clarify what those options could be in the future include some timelines like is this something that is within excuse me I just at this point we're just going to direct the the city manager not discussing I'm getting tired so okay I would like clarification and I second it thank you for keeping me on track mayor uh council member Graham thank you mayor um so my question I you know I think this is an interesting petition um I haven't really had a chance to review it closely so um if we directed the city manager to investigate the matter and prepare a written response to the council number two my question is can we then can the council then take it up and go and and choose to go with option one at that point is that this is a two-step process May mayor I'm asking a question about because I want to because I'm going to make an alternate motion for number one if the the answer to that is no okay well the the motion is to I can make an alternate motion um the there's no answering the first motion because the motion is as directed and we will vote on that the city manager the City attorney and the Parliamentary if you would like to make the the three points that we can make is to direct so more information can be prepared for our benefit as you said you barely got it and you still need to study it so City attorney just just motion to speak there's just I'm resp what you're saying and I'm saying that you admitted that this just came to us and we could use more information now the projection of whether or not uh if and when that is prepared it goes to the next step of a consideration that's just the natural progression of things whether it uh verifies so you're saying yes I'm saying that the motion is to direct city manager to provide more information to you and at that conclusion of that then you would have more information to uh propose uh further agendize of it or to cross check with the transportation department or whatever is involved so that's that's the Fulfillment of the motion okay as we go okay and I'm I'm seeing I don't see any other clarification I'm seeing a head nod in the affirmative from the city attorney which I appreciate I don't would you yes that's okay thank you thank you so we have a motion to get more information and provide a direct city manager to provide Prov that for us um uh please uh register your vote Yes okay councilwoman Littlefield it's unanimous thank you very much just for the record there had been a uh possible work study however that since we just had the uh quarterly report last meeting uh we will look for an update and um a uh other presentation with that we are concluded with our business uh and I hear a motion to adjourn second thank you please record your vote yes we're unanimous thank you so much for